Violence And Perspectives

     I strongly disapprove of violence done to me. — Robert A. Heinlein

     I feel the same. I’d imagine that most of us do. That’s sort of obvious, isn’t it? No one actually wants to be on the receiving end of violence, including those who set out to “do unto others.”

     But then, we have this:

     A new report from our group, the Network Contagion Research Institute, provides answers. Our research, based on nationally representative surveys and analyses of online activity, demonstrates the existence of online subcultures that support the murder of public figures like Trump and Musk. This “assassination culture,” incubated on social media, has migrated from the margins of public life into the mainstream.
     We found that nearly one-third of Americans surveyed—and around half of those identifying as left-of-center—believe that the murder of certain public figures is at least somewhat justified. The figures are startling: 38 percent of respondents, and 55 percent of those left of center, said assassinating President Trump would be at least somewhat justified; 31 percent of respondents, and 48 percent of those left of center, said the same about Musk. Forty percent of respondents, and 58 percent of those left of center, deem it at least somewhat acceptable to “destroy a Tesla dealership” in protest.
     Our report also discovered an online “assassination culture,” found in predominantly left-leaning digital spaces, such as Bluesky and Reddit. This subculture justifies and glorifies political violence. Some of these networks’ users wield the name “Luigi” or use the Luigi video game character as coded endorsements of Brian Thompson’s alleged assassin, Luigi Mangione. These users cloak explicit calls for violence in stylized memes. Many believe that political murder and sabotage are acceptable forms of protest.

     The popularization of violence against persons and property came into sharp focus with the George Floyd riots and their sequels. Those were less than five years ago as I write this. Since then, there have been explosions of violence throughout the nation, every one of them in support of some Leftist agenda item. The most dramatic events in the series were Thomas Crooks’s attempt to assassinate Donald Trump and Luigi Mangione’s assassination of medical insurance CEO Brian Thompson: from violence against property to attempted and actual murders. What conclusions can we draw from the escalation?

     Please read the Dulberg / Horder article in its entirety. It’s a penetrating examination of the “power uber alles” mindset of the Left. But it has a sotto voce implication I want to bring to the fore: The early essays in violence were emulated in increasing frequency and ferocity for a reason: they worked. That is: they brought their organizers some, at least, of what they wanted.

     There are many other things I could say about that progression – yes, I intend the irony here – but the others pale beside that one.

     The Left’s perspective is founded on its promotion of “power uber alles.” It’s a “whatever works” perspective that says through its deeds that “if ballots don’t work, we’ll use bullets.” That’s clearly antithetical to the aims of a sane and peaceful society. Yet for five years it’s regularly brought the Left success, albeit limited success rather than the complete domination it seeks.

     The Romans had many sayings. Today, this one is foremost in my thoughts:

     For war is the endpoint of the violence continuum.

     War is a condition of violent confrontation in which two sides openly pit their martial assets against one another. The Left doesn’t want war. Its masters hope to continue the current state of things, in which Leftist violence, however widely deplored, is not answered by violence. But the only stopping point short of war is violent opposition to Leftist initiations of violence, preferably limited in space and time. That implies localized readiness, willingness, and ability to respond to such initiations.

     Draw the moral for your own communities.